Mediocre Minds Plead Reason,
Higher Ones Transcend It …
Right from the beginning man has been in
pursuit of acquiring knowledge. Initially he did it with the observations of
the surroundings. Subsequently this study of surroundings was named as science.
The sciences explained how the events take place, what are the causes and
effects of particular events. This development of science took place in the
background of religious beliefs where the rituals were mainly related to some
unobservable results. For example the religious beliefs asked people to do good
to get wealth in heavens. Sciences asked them to follow a particular series of
acts to get wealth in this world. The religion asked for unobservable results
mainly based on faith while the sciences asked for observable outcomes based on
achievements. Human psychology preferred the later. People found sciences more
convenient to them.
This preference was based on the
observation of people that this world is objective which has an ultimate
reality. They thought that this ultimate reality could be discovered through
the scientific discoveries. This belief of people that the ultimate reality is
discoverable through some scientific procedures was strengthened by those
procedures themselves. When the science broke a particle a new sub-particle
level was found. It was, therefore inferred that one day as the technology
provides a suitable gadget the ultimate sub-level will be discovered and
thereafter the sciences will reach their ultimate peak. This optimism of people
about the ultimate reality through the scientific methods made them develop a
psychological mental framework regarding the superiority of sciences, matter,
objectivity, reason etc.
Today people draw their heritage based on this
mental framework. This is how the people perceive this world. They perceive
that science undertake experiments on matter; objective results are obtained;
these results have reasons behind them.
The world exists and proceeds
independently. Some observers call it a creation of god and the others call it
a product of Big Bang. This world without being thwarted by people’s
interpretation and perception exists and continues in its own mode. The
difference is extended only to the perception. The process of the world does
not halt to wait for one or the other perception, this keeps proceeding on. However, in the
era of Copernicus, Galileo, then Newton
Then it came the twentieth century. A
scientific revolution also came along with. Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Plank,
Bohr, Bose, Schrödinger and a lot more scientists joined the stride. Einstein
told people that it was not the matter only but the energy was also equally
important. Matter and energy were inter-convertible. When this all was on, Heisenberg
put forward his revolutionary idea. He said that the position and velocity of a
particle both cannot be ascertained simultaneously with the same precision. He
gave a particular number that the imprecision would always be greater than that
number. As per Prof. Dave MacCallum, November 20th, 2000 later it was realized that
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied not only to the relationship between
momentum and position, but between non-continuous observables. If the spin of a
particle in the z direction is known, then the spin in the y direction cannot
be known. This is equivalent to the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics
demonstrated in the Stern-Gerlach measurements and in the Copenhagen
Not only Heisenberg was shaking this belief
of absolute truth but others were also doing something similar to that. The
French research scholar de Broglie proposed that the matter can be a particle
and wave both simultaneously. This was something similar to saying that the
life can be a cat and a vacuum simultaneously. The first time sciences were
facing a problem. This was the problem of insufficient diction of the language.
This was the same problem which was initially
felt by Wittgenstein and then shrouded A J Ayer and his Vienna
Coming back to the science, Schrödinger is
known for his declaration regarding the demise of the matter. Another
contemporary, Neil Bohr was also saying the same thing but in different words.
Neil Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which
asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave
or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or
even to exist, until it is measured. In short, Bohr was saying that a particle
may or may not exist at the same time. In other words he says that the
objective reality does not exist.
Feeling not
much satisfied with this quantum theory Einstein was busy with theories of
relativity. After his special theory he gave his general theory of relativity.
Here he concluded that the velocity of light was the maximum velocity for any
object to attain. He also postulated that when the speed (velocity) of an
object is increased some strange effects start to ensue. The mass of the object
start increasing, its length begins contracting and for it the time would start
dilating. At a speed equal to that of the light its mass would be infinite, its
length would be zero and there would be no time passing for it. At a speed
comparable to that of the light- mass, time and length they all lose their
usual meanings, as you know them now.
These
conclusions of Einstein attack the “Reality” in two ways. Firstly, as no action
can move faster than light therefore the mankind is always constricted to have
a very limited glance of the universe. They can not know the universe as it is
“Now and Here”. If a space station receives a signal from a celestial body ten
billion light years away then it means that they view that celestial body as it
was ten billion years back and they have no means to know how it is now.
Today’s picture would be available ten billion years henceforth. This is a
mechanism in the nature itself that it has not allowed you to look it “all at
once”.
Secondly, the
mass, length and time will be in a different existence at the relativistic
speeds. Some learned ones say that at the speed of light as no time passes
therefore any one can go any where and no time would pass for him. He may cover
any distance within no time as the time would infinitely dilate for him. They
say that this would be further easy by the contraction of length. At the
relativistic speed all great distances would be reduced to zero and hence there
would be no problem to cover them. But the nature is not so accessible. As soon as the speed becomes relativistic
its mass approaches to become infinite. Hence no physical body can ever attain
the speed of light.
This has one
more aspect. Mass, length and time the three basic dimensions would be in
different type of existence at the relativistic speeds. This theory
scientifically shows that the existence can be there in different and more than
one form, which you are acquainted with. This may be a great scientific lesson
for those who are prone to refute things if these are not familiar things.
Einstein is teaching a lesson that familiarity should not be set as a pre-requisite
to accept new knowledge.
Contemporaneously,
after Heisenberg's wave challenge to the particle theory of matter de Broglie a
French scientist, as stated above came forward and submitted his Ph.D. thesis
postulating that at the sub-atomic level
a particle can be both – a particle and a wave simultaneously. Science
did not find anything wrong with this postulate. This theory of “Dual Nature of
Matter” opened a new vista for the thinkers that a linguistic contradiction is
a hurdle only before the languages. The existence of nature has no problems
with contradictions. For the first time in the human history “Contradictions in
terms” were assigned a suitable place in the dust bin of knowledge.
Those who
accept the new knowledge only if it is “contradiction – free”, should now
reconsider their premises. The science never takes recourse of logic. It
pursues observations. It then generalizes those observations and this
generalization is called a scientific law. Logic is used by those who are not
scientists, and want to discover the ultimate knowledge with the help of
languages they use. They presume that their language is all capable.
To dispel
there such belief consider one example. In Songhay, a language of African Sahara
region, there are about 87 words pertaining to sand and 34 words for oasis.
Each of these words has a specific reference to its individuality. If one has
to translate a paragraph from Songhay
language to a European language having almost single words for each of
the sand and the oasis, then the one has to lose some information each time one
so translates. This is a drawback of the languages and not of the existence
i.e. the sand or the oasis. Languages are generated by the past experiences of
that section of population. It contains only those descriptions which this
society has already encountered in the past. For a new incident, the languages
always hesitate as they are unequipped.
Logic proceeds
on syllogism. In syllogism a conclusion is deducted from the relationship of
two earlier sentences called premises. It is all about the relationship,
harmony and conjunction of these threes sentences, however they are called
propositions. The father of syllogism Aristotle himself defines syllogism as "a discourse in which,
certain things having been supposed, something different from the things
supposed results of necessity because these things are so." (24b18–20).
This syllogism discovers nothing new. It merely analyzes the internal harmony
of the “premises” and the “inference”. It is only analytic. It tells nothing
new. It is merely an attempt to find, create and propose such sentences of
language which are devised to avoid contradictions. Logic does nothing more
than this.
Prior to touching
another aspect of this article one more answer is required to be given to the
logists. They say that Logic is the art of conforming
one's thoughts to the Law of Identity. The law of Identity, as propounded by
Aristotle says that everything existing exists with a unique identity. This
unique identity is composed of attributes of that thing. Two different things
cannot have all the same attributes.
It is sufficient here to say that this is
nothing more than an approximation of this macro world where Aristotle, John,
Plato, Ramesh, and their families and animals etc. exist and come under the
purview of Law of Identity. Probably the large scale production of factories
producing goods with the same parameters violates this law of identity. It is
not clear if Aristotle could be able to propound the same law had he seen the
million of pieces of a product of a toy produced by a Chinese factory,
producing five million pieces per day for a length of six months. Some people
might find some emotional problem here, so let’s move to another instance.
There are two types of subatomic particles
– fermions and bosons. Fermions have some characteristic values assigned to
them (called their quantum numbers) while the bosons do not. No two bosons are
distinguishable from each other. Are they all one – as per the Law of Identity?
If not, is this some illusion? Scientists say that these bosons contribute more
than the contribution of fermions in this universe. Then, for being violative
of the Law of Identity, is this world a hallucination? Those who cite Aristotle
even for curing a rotten tooth will not find a satisfying answer here. Leave
them.
Now come to
“reason”. (As per Wikipedia) The concept of reason is connected to the concept
of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos",
later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French
"raison", from which the English word derived. As reason,
rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to
predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also
denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used
synonymously with the word "cause".
A few things
about “Reason” should be made clear. “Reason” is associated to those things
which are the past expereince. No reason can be addressed to some new
situations. No body can reason the behaviour of a human body on a new planet.
For that he needs to know the pressure, temperature, oxygen etc. over there and
then he would relate those variables to
his past experience as to how a varied composition of these variables affects a
human body. No body can address a reason for a planet X having an atmosphere of
gas Y and a temperature T and pressure P unless some pre-known values are given
to these variables X, Y, T, P. You can not rely upon a reason until select to
be revolving in a given periphery of already known situations.
What has been
seen so far is that the logic is nothing but a linguistic game like a game of
riddles and puzzles. Reason makes you revolve round in a given periphery and by
its nature it is deaf for the unknown circumstances, may it be of unknown
future or of unknown experience. It is useless there. The logic and the reason
both follow the languages. They end where the languages end. The languages are
not natural. They are artificial. The
logic and the reason stand even on a lowere padestal simply because they need
that artificial language for their own life.
Only the science
remains to explore new things. It reveals new aspects of the existence but not
through the logic or the reason. It does so through the observation and the explorations.
That is why sometime on a new discovery they do not have a diction-backup and
use some ad-hoc words like Young’s modulus, Raman effect, Chandrashekhar limit
or Hubble Telescope. The sciences do not follow languages. They follow the
existence. But here again there is a problem, however of different kind.
Sceinces put a
limitation on the ultimate effort of revealation of “THE EXISTENCE”. One cannot
go down breaking the matter beyond a particular level fixed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle. One can not go beyond a particular distance in space and that limit
is already there in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The existence is
not available to you at all levels and all distances.
The existence is
to be explored below the Heisenberg’s limit and beyond the Einstein’s limit.
Sceince is not able to cross this scientific limit. New ways are to be devised.
Age old tools of logic and reason, both made up of tautological material, are
to be abandoned. New ways are to be evolved. But how? And what?
We will discuss
it in the next article – “In The Pursuit Of Higher Consciousness”.
Article summary:
This article
tells how people mislead themselves by supposition that the logic and the reason
are the supreme tools of finding truth. These are only the linguistic games.
The sciences themselves put a sceintific limit on the efforts to find the
ultimate knowledge. This article raises the question then where is the way out.
Keywords:
Mediocre Minds
Plead Reason Higher Ones Transcend It, acquiring
knowledge, Matter and energy, mental framework, Einstein, Reality, Now and Here, Logic proceeds on
syllogism, fermions and bosons, Wikipedia, linguistic game,
No comments:
Post a Comment